Not very revolutionary set of pieces but for perhaps the Swedish composer Peterson-Berger. A bit unsteady here and the well, kind of lost it a bit at the repeating A-part at the Rach. Will probably re-record that.

Not bad, considering you just sat down and recorded after a long time of not playing much ! I bet you have played all these for a long time. I have some observations:

In the Ravel Prelude you take some liberties with the score. I recommend you re-read bars 3 and 6, 12, and 23. In bars 11 and 13 you play more like a 5/8 rhythm instead of 3/4. The rallentandi and p/pp markings should be observed more. In general there could be more impressionistic wonder. It's all a bit too literal and workmanlike now.

Peterson-Berger: Nice to make that acqaintance, I did not know either the name or the music. A charming piece, sort of Mendelssohn/Schumann in spring mode. I think I heard 2 or 3 wrong notes bit otherwise it sounds good. A bit more poetry and contrast could make it even more attractive. How about the complete set ?

Rachmaninov : A solid performance, but you need more drama here, the climax is a bit underpowered. The chordal sections are a bit sloppy, and more can be made of the closing bars if you allow them more time.

Last but not least: Bach !
There are note-perfect and solidly played, but all three are much too slow to my taste. IMO it is important to make these inventions dance a bit, so as not to make them sound like student excercises. At a slowish tempo that gets all the more difficult. You may want to take note of the 'historic' way to play trills and mordents, as laid down by Bach in his Clavierbuchlein for WF Bach. That long LH trill halfway down nr. 4 is a bit problematic, I am always in doubt whether to keep trilling or not - have now decided it sounds better if you don't. It could be different on a harpsichord. In the famous nr. 8 there is some ill synchronization beteen the hands (quite tricky is this little toccata).

As an impromptu recording these are pretty impressive. But they could be much better with some careful preparation.

I kind of liked your tempo on the Bach pieces. That's about the way I play them too. And about that left hand trill in No. 4. Your playing is fine, but Techneut is right in that maybe it sounds better on a harpsichord. I wish Bach didn't put it in. Oh well, he’s the boss.

The Peterson-Berger piece is nice. Never heard it before. Thanks for introducing it to us.

I remember the first time I read through the Rachmaninoff and at bar 45 where the double lines begin, I thought, “how am I going to get another set of hands? Did this just turn into a duet?” Dumb, I know. But I was young and stupid. The only comment I have on this prelude is the chords on the first page, right hand. I like a little more emphasis on the top note. I hear too much of the middle note. Still, nice job on all pieces.

This Edirol R-09 that you and Techneut use, I looked it up in a catalog. Here in the U.S. it costs $400.00. It looks like a very small machine. Do you place in under your piano, next to your piano, across the room? And does it pick up other noises in the house if people are not quiet?

I kind of liked your tempo on the Bach pieces. That's about the way I play them too. And about that left hand trill in No. 4. Your playing is fine, but Techneut is right in that maybe it sounds better on a harpsichord. I wish Bach didn't put it in. Oh well, he’s the boss.

The Peterson-Berger piece is nice. Never heard it before. Thanks for introducing it to us.

I remember the first time I read through the Rachmaninoff and at bar 45 where the double lines begin, I thought, “how am I going to get another set of hands? Did this just turn into a duet?” Dumb, I know. But I was young and stupid. The only comment I have on this prelude is the chords on the first page, right hand. I like a little more emphasis on the top note. I hear too much of the middle note. Still, nice job on all pieces.

This Edirol R-09 that you and Techneut use, I looked it up in a catalog. Here in the U.S. it costs $400.00. It looks like a very small machine. Do you place in under your piano, next to your piano, across the room? And does it pick up other noises in the house if people are not quiet?

Well I am still young and stupid, because I don't think I've yet figured out what that whole split systems is about...course I've never studied the piece, save for playing through it once or twice and it's not even fresh in my memory what exactly goes on there...can someone enlighten me?

As for the playing I only listened to the Rach and the Peterson-Berger which I really enjoyed. Just based on the one listen (being unfamiliar with the stylistic intentions of the composer and all) I would think I'd've preferred some rubato to be steadier(?), I'm not sure if that's the right turn, it wasn't completely elasticy I thought at times, a little sudden. Would love to hear more of those works!

This Edirol R-09 that you and Techneut use, I looked it up in a catalog. Here in the U.S. it costs $400.00. It looks like a very small machine. Do you place in under your piano, next to your piano, across the room? And does it pick up other noises in the house if people are not quiet?

Actually I use the R-1, the older model. It was close to 500 euros last year, which is about the same in dollars I believe. After some experimenting I now place it on a bench right next to me, and keep the lid of the grand closed. Seems to sound best and is easy to operate. If you go and buy one too maybe we'll get group discount

I noticed some hiss in Robert's recording as well as in Arensky's. Not sure where that would come from, I never had that as far as I can hear. But yes it will pick up other noises. We have a washing machine in the room next door and when it's centrifugeing you'll hear it rumble in the background. I had to use cut-and-paste to get rid of that on one occasion. It must be sort of quiet to record. I now also switch off my computer which is about 1.2 m from the piano.

I will ty to give feedback for all of your comments on one post . Sorry about the dot!

First the Edirol. This was the very first recording with it and I will probably manage it better soon. The hiss and the continuous noice is probably because of it. It clipped several times during the Rach prelude for instance and I put it underneath for the first recording. Will try another position next time. Perhaps some distance away from it as from a listeners perspective.

Overall, I have played all of them, but for the Rach prelude, a long time or rather, learned them a long time ago. I actually had a recital including the Sommarsång when I was 11 (perhaps 12). And Chris know that I have not played much as he know what I have been doing . Unfortunately, I have not really played much the last 1 1/2 year or so. Will try to change that when the autumn arrives in Sweden and the garden and outide house work close down.

BachI made them deliberately slow. Like to play them like that as I want the melodies to come out better and the mood of the pieces fits better. I got a plan with them and will probably record the entire set one day. They did not come out quite as I wanted them to and I perhaps got a bit too careful when I made the recording. I tend to get a bit stressed when I know I am recording something and become a bit too safe if you understand what I mean. Trying to not play a single key wrong (which I do not think I did).
For no.1, I made a tempo mistake in the end. Stupid mistake and the magic did not really get there.
No.4, I do like to trill them all the way through and it is actually a bit tricky as you need to find the steady 32:th beat and keep it all the way through. I used to have a much faster version of this one and perhaps do that some day. But this will probably be the last recording I replace of these three.
No.8. Not very happy about it. As Chris said, lot of bad syncings between the hands and this is actually an invention that could be played faster.

RavelI am not sure what you mean by taking liberties with the score Chris. I play the keys exactly as in my score. If this is wrong, my score is wrong but I doubt it as I got it from a teacher who enjoys Ravel a lot and have studied in Paris. I got the version which is adjusted for left/right hand. About rhythm, it is marked d`un rythme libre for a reason isn't it?

Peterson-BergerThis is actually not so good and I believe I knew this better than I did when I recorded it. Tried to look at the sore and play it along but as I cannot sight read very well, this was rather confusing so I played it from memory with a couple of bad fingerings here and there. It is from bad fingering you hear the mistakes. Not happy with it and it will be re-recorded for sure after some study of the score.
About recording the whole set, not impossible but I have never played a single piece of the others. Not too difficult though.

RachmaninovA-part is rather well, the B-part good enough even though I miss here and there but that is not really audible as you accent the first key in each triplet (one mistake is obvious though). But the repeating A-part is not good. Wrong notes, hesitations and loss of tempo in the large chord section (don't you just love these eight key chords!). Play it from memory and have not really studied (not even read it actually) the score here.
But as you point out, there should be more distinct changes in dynamics but also, this is kind of my way of playing. Will re-record this for sure as I have not really learnt it properly yet. Pianolady, you are right about the top key of right hand is not accented well enough. I have heard that before when I played it.

It clipped several times during the Rach prelude for instance and I put it underneath for the first recording. Will try another position next time.

You can avoid clipping by using the level display. In record standby mode, press the 'Display' button, strike some ffff chords and adjust the input volume so that the level display does not run off the screen.

Quote:

I am not sure what you mean by taking liberties with the score Chris. I play the keys exactly as in my score. If this is wrong, my score is wrong but I doubt it as I got it from a teacher who enjoys Ravel a lot and have studied in Paris. I got the version which is adjusted for left/right hand. About rhythm, it is marked d`un rythme libre for a reason isn't it?

Hehe, blame it on the score.. Thought I'd heard them all

No, it's just what I believe are some reading errors, unless perhaps your score is different from mine (I have the Durand, which I think is the 'Urtext' for Ravel).

Specifically: In bar 3 you play the last 2 RH quarter notes as eights. In bar 6, the two low RH notes should (according to Durand) be d and then d#, you play d twice.

In bar 11 and 13 you play the first quarter notes as an eight, creating a 5/8 bar. And in bar 23 you leave out the c in the RH. These were the 'liberties' I meant. Not sure know what problem I had with bar 12... there's nothing wrong with it

The last 2 bars are neither pp nor 'Tres lent' and there should certainly be no accents in there, especially not on the last chord. Accenting the last note or chord in a phrase is a bad habit of mine too, a continuous point of attention during lessons.

No, it's just what I believe are some reading errors, unless perhaps your score is different from mine (I have the Durand, which I think is the 'Urtext' for Ravel).

Specifically: In bar 3 you play the last 2 RH quarter notes as eights.

Oh yes I do. You are right.

techneut wrote:

In bar 6, the two low RH notes should (according to Durand) be d and then d#, you play d twice.

No I do not. I definitely play first d and the d#.

techneut wrote:

In bar 11 and 13 you play the first quarter notes as an eight, creating a 5/8 bar.

I agree in bar 11 but not in bar 13. Perhaps not a pure 4:th but it is something in between a 4:th and an 8:th

techneut wrote:

And in bar 23 you leave out the c in the RH.

Yes I do. A pure mistake.

techneut wrote:

The last 2 bars are neither pp nor 'Tres lent' and there should certainly be no accents in there, especially not on the last chord. Accenting the last note or chord in a phrase is a bad habit of mine too, a continuous point of attention during lessons.

It feel like I play the entire piece as p but for in a couple of instances so the difference does not show much but I have the bad habit of accenting the top key but for in the Rach prelude where I really should do so .

Must thank you for your careful listening and your sensitive ear. I have never heard a "professional" recording of it and it has been a huge time gap since anyone (I mean with knowledge about the piece) heard me play the prelude.

Back to the piano but you will have to wait at least to sunday evening before I put up a cleaned version.

When I think of Rachmaninov I think big and heroic sounding pieces. I don’t know what you wanted to portray thought the piece, so I will tell you how I think I would play this piece.

The first page (13- 14 bars “lento”) First of it says to play Lento (slow) and I found it a bit to fast for my taste. I think playing it just a tiny bit slower would cause the way you play to sound more dramatic and heroic! Which is what you want in an Rachmaninov piece. Also I thought this part a bit mechanical for my taste, and I agree with Robert in that the top keys are shrivelled out by the harshness of the middle notes.

But I think if you work just work a little bit more on this piece you will sound great! it’s the little things that make a big difference.

These sound near perfect to me, Robert. Only a tiny little slip off the keys at the very end of No. 1 at 1:08. If only these Edirol machines could do some editing magic. And yes, keep putting your heart into your music. That's what makes everyone's playing special.

Thank you pianolady. Yes there is a little slip there and another in the 4:th Invention near the end...or I rather miss a key in the last trill. However, ornaments in Bach are interpreted very differently between pianists and can be done so as little proof exist on how Bach intended them to be played. (Unless if you check this site out:
http://www.iment.com/maida/familytree/h ... tation.htm)
So it is possible that people will believe I intended to play it that way .

The sound is much nicer now (I found it a bit metallic in the first recordings) and so is the interpretation. Both inventions are much more fluent and dance-like, and especially the nr.4 is considerably faster than before, if I remember well. To me this is a huge improvement

It's just the ornaments that I'm still not convinced about. As you say it can't be known how Bach played them, but it seems clear from his famous ornaments table that the trillo should start on the upper note. Isn't that what most performers do, or is there another school of interpretation ?
Actually, you play some the trillos as mordents, others as inverted mordents. What edition are you using ?

Bach:
Solid playing, 1 and 4 are not too slow for my taste, 8 sounds a bit tenacious, that is my first impression. In invention 8 it is so that the melody switches between right and left hand. The melody comes out well in the right hand, but not so in the left hand. You could try to take the right hand more back in those bars at which the left hand has the melody. It sounds not to me that it is only a matter of your Edirol placement.
In invention 1 I would not play the left hand that staccato here and there, but that is more a matter of taste.

Rach:
To be honest, I do not like much your recording. Since you said that you will rerecord it anyhow, let me tell some things what could be improved without too much effort. In the first A part it would be nice if the melody (right hand pinky) stands better out regarding the pp !! played notes with other right hand and left hand fingers, with a proper melody bow.
The middle part is labeled "agitato". In my opinion this is a high romantic piece, and Rachmaninoff himself let no doubt that he meant it to play accordingly (I have 3 recordings of Rach plays Rach 3/2, if you don't have, pmail me, it sounds interesting). That means, playing with lots of passion. So let it sound more agitato, both from speed and volume (with increasing intensity, so that it explodes before the A-part comes again with force.

The fulminant second a-part - you wrote yourself that you recognized the wrong notes here, you are right, you should work on that.

Somewhere near the end a chord sounds as if beeing played twice as if you would have put the piece together from two takes and forgot to remove the additional chord. But I can be wrong, have listened only once to your recording.

Don't treat this as offend, I played and recorded this piece too, it is on my homepage. I decided for myself too, to not let it get to the PianoSociety recordings in this fashion, because
a) there is a VERY good live recording already there, and I know my take will never be that good and
b) in my take there are flaws too, like the alternating chords coming before the second A-part did not come very well.
So don't throw paper balls on me for that comments on Rach, I have to polish on that piece too.

Bach:Solid playing, 1 and 4 are not too slow for my taste, 8 sounds a bit tenacious, that is my first impression. In invention 8 it is so that the melody switches between right and left hand. The melody comes out well in the right hand, but not so in the left hand. You could try to take the right hand more back in those bars at which the left hand has the melody. It sounds not to me that it is only a matter of your Edirol placement.In invention 1 I would not play the left hand that staccato here and there, but that is more a matter of taste.

No it is not only a matter of Edirol . Much more of weak playing. I will re-record it soon again but have a better plan for it. I am very aware of the staccato playing in no.1 and it was not unplanned. A matter of taste as you say.

MindenBlues wrote:

Rach:To be honest, I do not like much your recording. Since you said that you will rerecord it anyhow, let me tell some things what could be improved without too much effort. In the first A part it would be nice if the melody (right hand pinky) stands better out regarding the pp !! played notes with other right hand and left hand fingers, with a proper melody bow. The middle part is labeled "agitato". In my opinion this is a high romantic piece, and Rachmaninoff himself let no doubt that he meant it to play accordingly (I have 3 recordings of Rach plays Rach 3/2, if you don't have, pmail me, it sounds interesting). That means, playing with lots of passion. So let it sound more agitato, both from speed and volume (with increasing intensity, so that it explodes before the A-part comes again with force.

The fulminant second a-part - you wrote yourself that you recognized the wrong notes here, you are right, you should work on that.

Somewhere near the end a chord sounds as if beeing played twice as if you would have put the piece together from two takes and forgot to remove the additional chord. But I can be wrong, have listened only once to your recording.

Don't treat this as offend, I played and recorded this piece too, it is on my homepage. I decided for myself too, to not let it get to the PianoSociety recordings in this fashion, becausea) there is a VERY good live recording already there, and I know my take will never be that good and b) in my take there are flaws too, like the alternating chords coming before the second A-part did not come very well.So don't throw paper balls on me for that comments on Rach, I have to polish on that piece too.

Well, I should be old enough to take an honest answer and I agree more or less to everything you have to say about it. Not very good and there is already a very good competing version up. Also, I prefer an honest answer so really, I did not get upset at all so do not worry about that.

The middle part is what troubles me most with this prelude. Not because it is difficult to play, rather I am not really sure how to play it. I try to accent and legato first key of each triplet while playing short [i]p[/p] staccatos for key 2, 3. But I accent the first key to little and play 2,3 too loud and un-staccato. I have a rather untuned Schimmel at work and by some reason, I play this part better on this. Feels easier but I do not why. Anyway, you suggest a good plan and I will try it out.

The repeating A-part is as I have already said not at all good. I must not have so many wrong notes there. But I do not understand what you mean by that same chord played twice in the end. It is a single take so nothing copied/paste there but I am not really famous for my careful score reading so I will check again.

The sound is much nicer now (I found it a bit metallic in the first recordings) and so is the interpretation. Both inventions are much more fluent and dance-like, and especially the nr.4 is considerably faster than before, if I remember well. To me this is a huge improvement

It's just the ornaments that I'm still not convinced about. As you say it can't be known how Bach played them, but it seems clear from his famous ornaments table that the trillo should start on the upper note. Isn't that what most performers do, or is there another school of interpretation ?Actually, you play some the trillos as mordents, others as inverted mordents. What edition are you using ?

Sorry to be such a nitpicker

Yepp a lot better actually. Did put some Reverb at it with Audacity. Did that last time as well after running it through a FFT-filter. I think the noice (but from clips) originated from the filter and was amplified with the reverb.

About the ornaments and score versions. Well, for no.1, I use some kind of school collection book with a lot different scores in it. Perhaps not very reliable. For no.4, I use Czerny's. But, not 100% I play like it.

Well, I should be old enough to take an honest answer and I agree more or less to everything you have to say about it. Not very good and there is already a very good competing version up. Also, I prefer an honest answer so really, I did not get upset at all so do not worry about that.

The middle part is what troubles me most with this prelude. Not because it is difficult to play, rather I am not really sure how to play it. I try to accent and legato first key of each triplet while playing short staccatos for key 2, 3. But I accent the first key to little and play 2,3 too loud and un-staccato. I have a rather untuned Schimmel at work and by some reason, I play this part better on this. Feels easier but I do not why. Anyway, you suggest a good plan and I will try it out.

The repeating A-part is as I have already said not at all good. I must not have so many wrong notes there. But I do not understand what you mean by that same chord played twice in the end. It is a single take so nothing copied/paste there but I am not really famous for my careful score reading so I will check again.

Robert, I am very glad that you act not angry on me, and treats it as constructive critique. With this prelude we sit in the same boat, so to say - that means I know that I have myself too lots to do to make my thing better...

Sorry with that same chord played twice comment - I should call my ear doctor. After listening again, with score, I heard it not more. So excuse my critique regarding this, I was wrong.
Concerning wrong notes (not slips) I meant the A-part after the B-part, 3rd bar 2nd half (probably only right hand notes), and the simliar place near the end, I think the 10th last bar, second half.

I like your strong volume in the second A-part, but maybe it could be speed-up too (even if it is labeled as primo tempo in my score, but Rach itself plays the second A-part faster than the first one). That sound even more "angry".

You played it from memory after a long time again? I cannot do that! After memorizing a half year ago, I tried to play it lately again, and I not only needed the score again, I had also trouble to find the right notes with score (crazy those coding with 2 systems per hand, 4 systems together, isn't it?).

Rachmaninov himself plays it increidble fast and I have one of his recordings too. Many others do not as for example Ashkenazy who's version is the slowest I have heard.

I did not play it entirely from memory but used the score for the B-part as support. I have refreshed this piece a couple of weeks and am not in any way a magic memorizer . My brain needs to be refreshed from time to time.

The sound is very clear and transparent, compared to my recordings which always sound rather muffled. Do you have the lid open or closed ? Where do you place the Edirol ? I wonder if the R-9 has has better mics than the R1.

The sound is very clear and transparent, compared to my recordings which always sound rather muffled. Do you have the lid open or closed ? Where do you place the Edirol ? I wonder if the R-9 has has better mics than the R1.

Thanks.

Lid closed. I place mr. Edirol about 5-6 meters behind my back and sample directly to mp in 224 kbps (pretty damped living room). Make sure it does not clip. No idea about the mics. Some tricks with Audacity as below:
- Apply the FFT filter to take away the bass about -6 db, cut at about 12 kHz.
- Gain to have everything - 3db from clip
- Apply GVerb with room size of about 150 meters, reverb time of 3 seconds, damping at about 0.75, Input bandwidth 0.75, Dry signal at 0 db, Early reflection at about -15 db and Tail level at about -19 db.

Have the same opinion on Invention 8 - much better now, relaxed and good tone.

The Inventions can be seen as 2voice fugues, and Bach gives both voices the same importance. So one can do alot if one tries to let the melody flow sound the same way (regarding dynamics AND articulation), regardless in which hand the melody is. I think this is a life long task to get better in that, for everyone, not only for the multivoiced fugues, but too for those 2-voice Inventions.

I just put up a new version of the Ravel prelude. So now Chris, I think I got everything right. Did I?

Yessir. After close listening, I think I was mistaken about bar 6.

It sounds far more poised now and this time reminded me much of Ma Mere l'Oye.
You start beautifully with the Ralenti but again the last two chords are too assertive and literal. I think they should sort of dissolve in the air.

Let's see if we can do something to help with the sound your Edirol is producing, shall we?

Regardless of how realistic sounding any piano module is, there is a characteristic (un)quality that is an obvious "tip off" to its electronic origin. Do you know what that is? It is the manner in which the lowest notes are panned towards the left channel and the high notes are panned towards the right channel.

Of course, that is the characteristic quality the pianist hears when he/she sits down at the keyboard and begins to play. However, when grand pianos are recorded in a concert venue, their keyboards are turned perpendicular to the audience!

The audience members NEVER hear the high notes of a concert grand piano originating from stage right! (That is to say, not unless they are unfortunately seated in the very first row at the far LEFT of the auditorium!) In fact, the characteristic grand piano's shape of its case forces the shorter strings to speak from the left of center, as perceived by the audience.

In addition, electronic pianos' sounds are panned to the extremes -- hard left to hard right, with the image of the sound varying according to key position. This extreme amount of panning simply does not exist in the concert venue. If you have mixing capabilities, it is better to reverse the panning, and keep the overall level of panning closer to the middle, with the high notes going somewhat to the left, and the lowest notes going somewhat to the right.

The second characteristic that wrecks the sound of a recorded electronic piano/module is the nature of the reverberation pattern. Cheap pianos have cheap reverb add-ons! Now, what do I mean by this? Cheap reverb units allow for zero time to accrue before the reverberation pattern begins to commence. Restated, the recorded sound would have to travel FASTER than the speed of sound to achieve what you are hearing from these units.

A certain amount of time must transpire for the original sound to travel to the walls, ceiling, floor, etc, -- BEFORE their reflections can bounce into the listeners' ears. Rather, cheap reverb units have instantaneous echo -- and plenty of it!! Many cheap reverbs make no corrections for sound absorption versus distance, versus wood/cloth/concrete reflecting surfaces.

If you wish to provide palpable hall or room sound to your recordings, try to see if there is an adjustable time delay from the onset of the sound until the reverb kicks in. The better units have a certain amount of "bloom" to their reverberation tails. Best yet, are the new convolution reverbs that are available as plug-ins to computer programs. They are very CPU intensive, however, but can generate a far more palpable sound to your finished product.

Enough of my rambling on this subject. I hope you found it somewhat enlightening.

I mistakenly assumed the Edirol unit you used was an electronic piano module rather than a recording device. My apologies to you; pleas pardon my faux pas. The comments I made in my 28th August thread are still valid for electronic/sampled pianos regarding panning and reverberation.

So, now I have finally re-recorded all recordings. I actually put up a new with Peterson-Berger teh 22:th but forgot to post anything about it . Last (couple of minutes ago), I put up a new version of the Rach prelude.

The P-B sounds more relaxed than the previous. Only thing is the two rirtardandi before the main theme resumes, these seem a bit peculiar the way you distribute the note values. But perhaps it's written like that, I do not know the piece.

The Rach is also more convincing than before. But you know I am a nitpicker. I spotted some reading mistakes and set out to note them all down:

But stopped doing that in the Agitato and afterwards, too many dodgy notes of which I am unsure whether they are slips or reading mistakes. The big climax in bars 37-44 is better than the previous, but still sounds a but underpowered. The chords that connect to the reprise (bars 44-45) are played too fast, I think these should have a rit. leading to the Tempo I. There seem to be many wrong notes in the chords in the final page, it still sounds a bit sloppy.

My overall impression is you need to be more patient with the music - use more flexible tempi, and take your time over important transitions and climaxes. Even from the start, it sounds a bit hurried (more like Andante than Lento).

The P-B sounds more relaxed than the previous. Only thing is the two rirtardandi before the main theme resumes, these seem a bit peculiar the way you distribute the note values. But perhaps it's written like that, I do not know the piece.

I re-read the score and yes, it is.

techneut wrote:

The Rach is also more convincing than before. But you know I am a nitpicker. I spotted some reading mistakes and set out to note them all down:

I know you are and that is why you run the Music Board and doing it great as well .

And I pretty much was sure this was coming as the bar 6 differes between editions. Just look at the sheetmusicarchive.net and you will probably notice differences between editions. Not only these bars but look at the bass chords at the repeating A-part. In one of the editions, it is played with 4-finger chords on both hands (like I believe it should) while in the other edition, it is straigt octaves with both hands.

But back to bar 6. I tried to listen to what Rachmaninov himself does on this bar and it is not easy to hear. Listen to his version at an mp3 from http://classic.chubrik.ru/Rachmaninov/ (blackest site on the net). I am not sure whether he is flatening the d:s (four of them, two in each hand) or playing them sharp. One of the versions at SMA flatens the d:s and I also consulted my piano teacher who said he always played them flat.

About bar 12 LH. It is a slip, I know it should be D#-F#-B#.

techneut wrote:

But stopped doing that in the Agitato and afterwards, too many dodgy notes of which I am unsure whether they are slips or reading mistakes.

I slip a lot there.

techneut wrote:

The big climax in bars 37-44 is better than the previous, but still sounds a but underpowered. The chords that connect to the reprise (bars 44-45) are played too fast, I think these should have a rit. leading to the Tempo I. There seem to be many wrong notes in the chords in the final page, it still sounds a bit sloppy.

My overall impression is you need to be more patient with the music - use more flexible tempi, and take your time over important transitions and climaxes. Even from the start, it sounds a bit hurried (more like Andante than Lento).

I noticed when I got the time that my version is fast. Only 3:30 (3:13 from first to last chord). Ashkenazy's is 4:30 (too slow in my opinion) but Rachmaninov's himself is 3:38 (3:30 from first to last chord) so we play them a bit alike at least while his Agitato is very fast. The repeating A-part is also a LOT faster than the beginning. Also, he plays the last chord very fast after the second last. Didn't notice that until now.

The last part is rather sloppy but this version was still the best of my takes. Cannot make too many as I get rather tired playing it. I will try to improve as time goes. Could be a nice piece to throw off sometime and I know it more or less by heart already.
Thanks for taking the time!

And I pretty much was sure this was coming as the bar 6 differes between editions. Just look at the sheetmusicarchive.net and you will probably notice differences between editions. Not only these bars but look at the bass chords at the repeating A-part. In one of the editions, it is played with 4-finger chords on both hands (like I believe it should) while in the other edition, it is straigt octaves with both hands.

Ah right. I have an old Augener edition which is probably not very authoritative, it says "Revised, phrased and fingered by O. Thümer". But, I compared with the sheetmusicarchive.net version, and they seem exactly the same, certainly so in bar 6. So if that is what you are using, you still may want to look into that.

Interesting about the bass chords in the reprise. Surely only the first in each bar should be a 4-finger chords and the other two straight octaves ? Or do you refer specifically to bar 52 ?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: TurnitinBot [Bot] and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum